alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 16, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TERRI PRUITT,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-3152

(D. Kan.)

(05-CR-20054-CM)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before O’BRIEN, HOLLOWAY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

On consideration of Ms. Pruitt’s petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court

granted the petition and remanded to this court of appeals for further

consideration in light of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). We have

done so, considering anew the district judge’s findings and his sentence as well. 

We are persuaded that our determinations remain correct for reasons given in our

earlier opinion, 502 F.3d 1154 (August 29, 2007). We here identify particular

reasons why we conclude our determinations were and are in accord with the

principles stated in Gall and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007).
-2-

In our panel opinion we noted that the district court had first recognized

that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), had rendered the Sentencing

Guidelines advisory and the judge explained that he was required to calculate

Pruitt’s sentences under the Guidelines, but that he would consider the Guidelines

range as one factor among other relevant factors. 502 F.3d at 1157. We noted

that the district judge then addressed the sentence, closely tracking the factors set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), considering the nature and circumstances of the

offense, Pruitt’s history and characteristics and the need for the sentence to

reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just

punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from further crimes of

the defendant. 502 F.3d at 1157. We pointed out that in essence, the district

court stated that although it had authority to vary from the Guidelines range, no

factors warranted doing so. We said that the district court concluded that 292

months’ imprisonment was a reasonable sentence under the circumstances. Id.

We said that consistent with our opinion in United States v. Kristl, 437

F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2006), we would accord a presumption of reasonableness to

a sentence within the Guidelines career-offender range. 502 F.3d at 1158. Gall

emphasized that the appellate courts are to review the district court’s sentencing

decisions under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard whether the sentence is
-3-

within the Guidelines or not. Our previous opinion utilized that standard. 

Therefore we reinstate our previous judgment and affirm the judgment of the

district court.

Entered for the Court

William J. Holloway, Jr.

Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18585]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1223-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Florida, (FEMA-1223-DR), dated June 18, 1998, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Florida, is hereby amended to include reimbursement for the eligible 
costs associated with the pre-staging of Emergency Management 
Assistance Compact fire suppression assets in the State of Florida.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 98-18585 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
No. 10-11034.

#### Travis Monte Nelson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 863, 132 S. Ct. 205,

181 L. Ed. 2d 110,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6061.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 899.
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 99.1
------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Environmental Tectonics Corporation (the "Company") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William F. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                     William F. Mitchell
                                                     -------------------
                                                     William F. Mitchell
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

                                                     May 29, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,058,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (31,798)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,394,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,670,388
<PP&E>                                       2,965,028
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,525,002)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,427,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,725,567
<BONDS>                                        467,920
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,757
<OTHER-SE>                                     (58,793)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,427,034
<SALES>                                      9,815,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,815,619
<CGS>                                        7,371,676
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,371,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,747
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             314,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,502,136)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,545,136)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,545,136)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.96)


</TABLE>
No. 10-7178.

#### Jose Elias Sepulveda, Petitioner v. Ralph Burnside, et al.

562 U.S. 1147, 131 S. Ct. 923,

178 L. Ed. 2d 770,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 433.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 821.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18851]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33608]


Rock & Rail, Inc.--Lease and Operation Exemption--Royal Gorge 
Express, LLC

    Rock & Rail, Inc., a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of 
exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from Royal Gorge Express, LLC, 
and to operate, approximately 11.75 miles of rail line in Freemont 
County, CO, between milepost 171.90, at Parkdale, and milepost 160.15, 
at Canon City.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The lease of the line is subject to a permanent, irrevocable 
overhead trackage rights easement retained by the Union Pacific 
Railroad Company. See Royal Gorge Express, LLC--Acquisition and 
Operation Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company, STB Finance 
Docket No. 33622 (STB served July 15, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after July 6, 
1998.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33608, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Fritz R. Kahn, Esq., 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 750, 
Washington, DC 20005-3934.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: July 8, 1998.

    By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18851 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40255 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. MARCUS RAY BOYKIN Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-148-1 Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Marcus Ray Boykin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Boykin has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Boykin’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 16, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 10-10650.

#### Elijah W. Ratcliff, Petitioner v. City of Livingston, Texas, et al.

565 U.S. 803, 132 S. Ct. 373,

181 L. Ed. 2d 4,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7103.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 406 Fed. Appx. 843.
No. 10-7772.

#### Dennis Scott McCullough, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1170, 131 S. Ct. 966,

178 L. Ed. 2d 806,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 30.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 211.
#### *Spokane County, Petitioner, v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd. et al., Respondents,*

No. 91665-9.

Petitions for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 31941-5-III, April 9, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 1047. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7570

DWIGHT DAVID LEWIS, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. KEITH W. DAVIS, Warden, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cv-00313-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight David Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dwight David Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18916]



[[Page 38399]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2685-005]


New York Power Authority; Notice of Availability of Environmental 
Assessment

July 10, 1998.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order 486, 52 FR 47897), the Commission's 
Office of Hydropower Licensing reviewed a flood erosion control plan 
for the Blenheim-Gilboa Project, No. 2685-005. The Blenheim-Gilboa 
Project is on Schoharie Creek in Schoharie County, New York. An 
Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for the flood erosion 
control plan. The EA finds that approving the plan would not constitute 
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment.
    The EA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower Licensing, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the EA can be viewed in 
the Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, of the Commission's offices at 
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    Comments should be addressed to David P. Boegers, Acting Secretary, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. Please affix Project No. 2685-005 to all 
comments. For further information, please contact the project manager, 
Ms. Monica Maynard, at (202) 219-2652.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18916 Filed 7-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691

Date: May 19, 2015

Subject: Meeting with Representatives from American Petroleum Institute

Attendees: See attached list.

Discussion addressed clarifying questions about proposed PM2.5 NAAQS SIP requirements rule.
ER 11\J Ti<~--- bx1mfl2o61! 

lfnnq Wf/vc)_ E_!/A 

few7 lo.&JA 11. Jl~ {of> 

/'fcG-1uJ f.51Z.ACft_l t-. ~YA- __ 

~7;//" ; 4J; ~~?< ~V/~ 

Jd Ski ~}1 41 /rf I 

f'{\(),c \~.erlY'r,,, ~ 

. ',/) \'- l",\:'. \ L ·1 G f ft 

/" I-.., /.Al J/riPb ~ c V X 

Lc.+i-. e kc. l ~ s z /\ P-r 

S~OJ- , \4-\\.~ Sh \ 

er 1o_,L_~ll//,,,61 l· w;Jt, 

_U;ocd. C/JtU1-<e-@-£fX4vo v _ 

JQ rt" ~ 0 fbt4CQftr\_ 

,6,r~d:d_Lm_€.(t;vr e a. ~V\) .J . Of~1~4 "1.. @?._c; L.vY-tA · l' ~ 

,sk~-&@_ 7L oJ _ 

2:..' ...,,..,~x-D=< ·r=--o-:--..0 c>~\ . C:J .... ............ 

{,·{\j NV<-~'~d G-· ey0L ]U-v 

ki-u '-Ji~ cJn ~ 

\.::..o. \ ~s c...c__@, c. . or'l 

Glc.v-, . \\-U-('S Sh.QJ\_. ~ 

---- ·-

~4-~U\ .~ G-, ·,.,}', ~ '" "'::> 4'..-.__, 

rYlr ~bev;:r.v;~ce,~.30J 

EPA ,tv~•, + f~_(J ~f~ ·5cv 

t1J77llcf !Ef)/lf f/ 

__,{.., '&~%-

j)~V'< f Av( <.c(_ 

E[//( /.~'7Q/eJ(/l f-'1'1 "ct P 7t7q JO V 

rt-~ ?~l'- C»&"'"'._~e., &.4'\~ ~L .e. 

;Jl:/(,j.r / ~ d4 v ~ _ c../~" ( ·e-£. ~ /6.6. c~-.. .
PHASED RETIREMENT

Basic Eligibility Criteria:

1. Must be eligible for immediate retirement:

a. Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees: minimum 30 years of service and age 55 or 

older; OR 20 years of service and age 60 or older.

b. Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) employees: minimum 30 years of service and 

minimum retirement age (between ages 55-57, depending on birth year); or 20 years of service 

and age 60 or older

2. Working a full-time schedule for at least three consecutive years prior to the phased retirement.

3. Mutual consent for the phased retirement must be given by the employee and an authorized Agency

official.

4. NOT eligible if under a special retirement program such as firefighters, law enforcement officers, 

nuclear material couriers, or air traffic controllers.

Individuals who meet the basic eligibility criteria above can request a Phased Retirement estimate at the 

following link: https://resourcesapps.hr.dla.mil/Programs/RERS/Warning.aspx

Not sure if your position would qualify for Phased Retirement? Please contact your servicing DLA Human 

Resources office.

 DLA employees: https://resources.hr.dla.mil/contactus/Default.asp

 Employees of DoD agencies that receive HR support for DLA Human Resources: 

https://resources.hr.dla.mil/ContactUs/Dod.asp

More info on Phased Retirement:

 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) phased retirement info page: https://www.opm.gov/retirementservices/phased-retirement/#url=Overview

 DLA Instruction 1412.01, DLA Phased Retirement Program: 

https://hqc.dla.mil/issuances/Documents/i1412.01.pdf
#### John B. Turner, Jr., Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Douglas R. Caesar, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 679]

Rose, J.

Appeals (1) from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered July 31, 2002 in Chenango County, which granted defendant’s motion to amend his answer, and (2) from an order of said court, entered November 18, 2002 in Chenango County, which granted defendant’s motions for an extension of time to effect service of his amended answer and to direct the manner of service thereof.

After this Court reversed Supreme Court’s order dismissing the amended complaint in this action to enforce a deed covenant restricting the use of defendant’s real property on Chenango Lake (291 AD2d 650 [2002]), defendant moved to amend his answer to assert counterclaims against plaintiff John B. Turner, Jr. (hereinafter plaintiff) and third-party claims against numerous additional property owners subject to the same covenant. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion, as well as his subsequent motions for a 120-day extension of the two-month period originally allowed for service on the additional property owners and permission to serve them by certified mail *1087pursuant to CPLR 308 (5). Plaintiff now appeals from those orders.

Leave to amend a pleading is discretionary and trial court orders generally will not be disturbed where there is no prejudice or surprise to the nonmoving party resulting from the delay and the proposed amendment is not plainly lacking in merit *(see Eddy v White,*304 AD2d 959, 960 [2003]). Here, defendant’s excuse for his delay was the wastefulness of the expense of joining the other property owners before this Court reversed Supreme Court’s order of dismissal. Supreme Court reasonably found this excuse to be sufficient. As to prejudice, plaintiff failed to assert, in either opposing defendant’s motion or his brief on this appeal, the existence of prejudice other than delay of his own trial and the need for additional discovery. Neither of these allegations is sufficient to preclude Supreme Court’s exercise of its discretion *(cf. Moon v Clear Channel Communications,*307 AD2d 628, 629-630 [2003]; *see Garrison v Clark Mun. Equip.,*239 AD2d 742, 742-743 [1997]).

We also find that defendant’s prompt application for an extension of time, his description of the efforts made to effectuate service, the reasons for his being unable to do so and the lack of prejudice to anyone all support the granting of an extension (see CPLR 306-b; *Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer,*97 NY2d 95, 107 [2001]; *Della Villa v Kwiatkowski,*293 AD2d 886, 887 [2002]). As to the method of service upon the third-party defendants, we need note only that plaintiff is not entitled to notice of that application and has no standing to object to it (see CPLR 308 [5]).

Crew III, J.P., Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with costs.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP8.37-1 APPENDIX 8.37

AP8.37. APPENDIX 8.37

FOLLOW-UP FOR INVENTORY CONTROL POINT/

INTEGRATED MATERIEL MANAGER REPLY TO 

CUSTOMER ASSET REPORT

(MATERIEL RETURNS PROGRAM)

FIELD LEGEND

(MANUAL)

BLOCK NO.

(MECHANICAL)

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Send To A Not Applicable Enter the appropriate in-the-clear 

name and address corresponding to 

the RIC.

Follow-up is 

From

B Not Applicable Enter the appropriate in-the-clear 

name and address of the reporting 

activity.

Document 

Identifier Code

1 1-3 Enter DIC FTF.

Other Fields 2-23 4-80 Enter data as contained in the 

customer asset report (DIC FTE).

Remarks Field L-V Not Applicable This field will be used to convey any 

additional required information not 

provided for in the follow-up format.
No. 10-7166.

#### Kenneth Johnson, Petitioner v. Arthur A. Morrell, et al.

562 U.S. 1147, 131 S. Ct. 922,

178 L. Ed. 2d 769,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 323.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 391 Fed. Appx. 333.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0544 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JUSTIN JAMES SWANSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 30 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 23 2022

12/23/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0544